Specifically when it became a part of Freemasonry.
I’ve read a fair number of Masonic histories that claim that the Master Mason Degree did not exist prior to 1717. That before that, Masonry consisted of two Degrees only, the Entered Apprentice and the Fellow Craft.
But of course Freemasonry would not be Freemasonry without the Third Degree, for it would be without its central allegory, and its primary lesson. It would also not be able to lay any claim to being the successor of the Mysteries, for without the Master Mason Degree it would lack any similarity to them.
The theory that Freemasonry previously existed as a two Degree system comes about from early ritual exposures and other individual writings.
Let’s chat about it. Do we think that it is correct that Freemasonry prior to 1717 was without our central allegory?
As we do on every Thursday, we will have a Live Open Thread today for those with a paid subscription to Emeth. I’ll open the Thread at 8:00 AM Pacific, and I will remain on it until 6:00 PM. We can discuss whatever is on your mind.
I personally find these Live Open Threads to be extremely thought provoking, I hope that you will consider joining in on the discussion today.
It would make sense that the 3rd Degree for a MM wasn't needed. Making a man a Master Mason was making him the Master of his Lodge.
If we are grown out of Operative Masonry, then you wouldn't have the need for very many Masters. That would be the title of those proven through their skill to be proficient with the various stone work required. They could run their own projects and ultimately make another man a Master. A FC would be what is considered a Journeyman in a trade craft today. Not an easy feat to accomplish through the years of apprenticeship and testing.
There was the Noahic legend prior to HA. Saw that in Pike's Estorika. But I don't recall the years and I'm at work so I can't look it up.
The operative guild in France (of which masons were a part) - - called the Campionage (variously spelled) - - had something called the Accolade for deceased brothers. It was a chain of a kind of points-of-friendship that culminated with an embrace of the deceased ... IN THE GRAVE!
The men behind the English GL could very well have decided to START a new ritual with a symbolic corpse.
The two degrees of Initiate and Fellow-of-the-Craft (Fellowcraft) seem to have been based on stone mason's classifications of Apprentice and Fellow or Journeyman. My studies have led me to believe that the second degree was inserted into the middle of the two classifications to create a further step in the journey. First Degree stayed the same. The former Second Degree became the new Third Degree, and a new degree was inserted between the two. I may be in error, but that's what I have gleaned from my readings.
Let's take a look at the traditions of the Apron. Without revealing any of the esoterica, the positions of the bib and apron seem out of order to me, and make no practical sense. I can see the position for the Entered Apprentice--it makes sense based on the description of the duties of the Apprentice. The Fellowcraft seems more suited to the description for the Master Mason. The Master Mason's description of the position of the apron is nonsensical. I can see that position--*maybe*--for a Fellow, but not for a Master. Why do we do it this way? "Because we've always done it this way." But, have we really?
Admittedly, much of my reading has been of "histories," based nearly equally on historical records and supposition based on those facts. Interesting certainly; entertaining, always. Informative, not always.
Without 3rd Degree, it wouldn't be the culmination of all the candidate has learned up to that point. I believe boldly that if we have had only 2 Degrees, the importance and more especially the Obligation, would have given any Mason a "hole" in his Masonic path. We're they right up to 1717? That was for our Masonic forefathers to decide. The 3rd Degree is part of me and drives me to live up to all 3 Obligations.
I can't know of course, for all who knew have been dead for centuries.
But I have my own theory.
My theory goes something like this:
Freemasonry always had the Three Craft Degrees. Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason.
That today, we give all new Masons (with very limited exceptions of course) all three Degrees. After that, we welcome them (assuming they want it) into leadership roles within our Lodges. That we started doing this sometime around the mid 1720's to mid 1730's.
That prior to then, we gave new Masons only the first two Degrees. We would Initiate them an EA, then Pass them and FC, then welcome them into active roles within the Lodges.
So, virtually all active Masons would have been Fellow Craft Masons.
But that we did give the Master Mason Degree, but that it was given only to the Master of the Lodge. The Master Mason was therefore not only a man who had been Initiated as such, but he was also a Master of men, a Master of Masons.
This is not much different than how things work, or should work now. A man becomes Master of his Lodge, and as a result of that, is given the Past Master's Degree. (I understand that in some areas the Past Master Degree is falling into disuse currently, but it is certainly an important part of Freemasonry.) Likewise, a man becomes Grand Master of his Grand Lodge, he is given the Past Grand Master's Degree. In Washington we actually do this immediately prior to the Installation of the GM, but in the old rituals I've read, the Installation begins, then the new GM is taken out to another place, given the Degree, then the Installation begins again. Lucky for us, we do it the other way now, for otherwise that Installation might just about go on forever!
In any event, that is what I think.
Prior to the mid 1720's to mid 1730's Lodges were composed of EA's and FC's, led by a MM, and that Master was the only man to have received the MM Degree.
This makes sense to me, because Freemasonry without the MM Degree makes no sense to me.
It also makes sense to me, because it explains why the Past Master Degree would have been developed, as a replacement for what used to happen after a Mason became Master of his Lodge.
In any event, this is just speculation, for what it is worth, but I think it makes sense.
Why would freemasonry invent a new story in 1717 if they could choose from any number of existing stories that have the same allegory?
I have read more than once about the 3rd degree being intended as a degree performed by the "Premiere" grand lodge of Lindon.
But I have not found much on EXACTLY WHEN the GL agreed to let individual lodges perform the 3rd degree.
It would make sense that the 3rd Degree for a MM wasn't needed. Making a man a Master Mason was making him the Master of his Lodge.
If we are grown out of Operative Masonry, then you wouldn't have the need for very many Masters. That would be the title of those proven through their skill to be proficient with the various stone work required. They could run their own projects and ultimately make another man a Master. A FC would be what is considered a Journeyman in a trade craft today. Not an easy feat to accomplish through the years of apprenticeship and testing.
There was the Noahic legend prior to HA. Saw that in Pike's Estorika. But I don't recall the years and I'm at work so I can't look it up.
The operative guild in France (of which masons were a part) - - called the Campionage (variously spelled) - - had something called the Accolade for deceased brothers. It was a chain of a kind of points-of-friendship that culminated with an embrace of the deceased ... IN THE GRAVE!
The men behind the English GL could very well have decided to START a new ritual with a symbolic corpse.
Does anyone know what month/year the Premier GL let blue lodges give the 3rd degree?
I honestly haven't given it much thought, but I can't imagine speculative masonry without it. Then you have to wonder about the Royal Arch degree.
The two degrees of Initiate and Fellow-of-the-Craft (Fellowcraft) seem to have been based on stone mason's classifications of Apprentice and Fellow or Journeyman. My studies have led me to believe that the second degree was inserted into the middle of the two classifications to create a further step in the journey. First Degree stayed the same. The former Second Degree became the new Third Degree, and a new degree was inserted between the two. I may be in error, but that's what I have gleaned from my readings.
Let's take a look at the traditions of the Apron. Without revealing any of the esoterica, the positions of the bib and apron seem out of order to me, and make no practical sense. I can see the position for the Entered Apprentice--it makes sense based on the description of the duties of the Apprentice. The Fellowcraft seems more suited to the description for the Master Mason. The Master Mason's description of the position of the apron is nonsensical. I can see that position--*maybe*--for a Fellow, but not for a Master. Why do we do it this way? "Because we've always done it this way." But, have we really?
Admittedly, much of my reading has been of "histories," based nearly equally on historical records and supposition based on those facts. Interesting certainly; entertaining, always. Informative, not always.
Without 3rd Degree, it wouldn't be the culmination of all the candidate has learned up to that point. I believe boldly that if we have had only 2 Degrees, the importance and more especially the Obligation, would have given any Mason a "hole" in his Masonic path. We're they right up to 1717? That was for our Masonic forefathers to decide. The 3rd Degree is part of me and drives me to live up to all 3 Obligations.
I can't know of course, for all who knew have been dead for centuries.
But I have my own theory.
My theory goes something like this:
Freemasonry always had the Three Craft Degrees. Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason.
That today, we give all new Masons (with very limited exceptions of course) all three Degrees. After that, we welcome them (assuming they want it) into leadership roles within our Lodges. That we started doing this sometime around the mid 1720's to mid 1730's.
That prior to then, we gave new Masons only the first two Degrees. We would Initiate them an EA, then Pass them and FC, then welcome them into active roles within the Lodges.
So, virtually all active Masons would have been Fellow Craft Masons.
But that we did give the Master Mason Degree, but that it was given only to the Master of the Lodge. The Master Mason was therefore not only a man who had been Initiated as such, but he was also a Master of men, a Master of Masons.
This is not much different than how things work, or should work now. A man becomes Master of his Lodge, and as a result of that, is given the Past Master's Degree. (I understand that in some areas the Past Master Degree is falling into disuse currently, but it is certainly an important part of Freemasonry.) Likewise, a man becomes Grand Master of his Grand Lodge, he is given the Past Grand Master's Degree. In Washington we actually do this immediately prior to the Installation of the GM, but in the old rituals I've read, the Installation begins, then the new GM is taken out to another place, given the Degree, then the Installation begins again. Lucky for us, we do it the other way now, for otherwise that Installation might just about go on forever!
In any event, that is what I think.
Prior to the mid 1720's to mid 1730's Lodges were composed of EA's and FC's, led by a MM, and that Master was the only man to have received the MM Degree.
This makes sense to me, because Freemasonry without the MM Degree makes no sense to me.
It also makes sense to me, because it explains why the Past Master Degree would have been developed, as a replacement for what used to happen after a Mason became Master of his Lodge.
In any event, this is just speculation, for what it is worth, but I think it makes sense.